Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's legitimate to correct offending narratives that conflict with your version of reality. You're not "correcting" someone's interpretation simply by stating a different interpretation, unless there's some grounding in evidence and objective truth. Core1024 may have evidence that supports his interpretation, but he didn't present it. As such, it doesn't qualify as a correction.
> You're not "correcting" someone's interpretation simply by stating a different interpretation But that's how people use the word, that's what politics is. There are no objective truths to social narrative, and facts aren't the only things that have the property of correctness. Perspectives have correctness, as in moral perspectives etc. It's not an objective scale, but people don't have to conduct their lives scien…
The blogger said Meyer acted on an email complaint about the turnstiles. The commenter said that's incorrect, that Meyer decided to have them removed on her own accord.
There's no value judgement. There's no appeal to moral authority. It's not politics. Core1024 is claiming to be objectively correct about Meyer's internal motivation for removing the turnstile. In this case, it's acceptable to ask: what evidence do you have?
If he says "She told me herself" or "It was a water cooler rumor," then great, we have our answer. If he says, "It's my strong suspicion based on [...]," then he passed off suspicion as fact. And if he says, "There is no evidence, this is a social narrative I've constructed without regard to objective truth," then we have a serious problem.